1 2016-02-12 00:02:36 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: Im dying, help
 2 2016-02-12 01:54:26 <rusty> kanzure, btcdrak: <sigh> So, do we want to allow a debate on whether full nodes are really more secure than lightweight nodes?
 3 2016-02-12 01:55:08 <rusty> I mean, is there anything useful and enlightning to say on that, or can we just point to some FAQ?
 4 2016-02-12 01:59:39 <kanzure> rusty: i saw a pending email about that, but it was super handwavy
 5 2016-02-12 02:00:00 <kanzure> lightweight nodes often don't implement the bitcoin protocol
 6 2016-02-12 02:00:16 <kanzure> wait why are we calling them lightweight nodes? i thought it was spv or something.
 7 2016-02-12 02:00:56 <moa> there is a whole zoo of different "lightweight" nodes now
 8 2016-02-12 02:01:08 <rusty> kanzure: yeah, we end up splitting hairs on "current spv clients" and "theoretical spv clients"...
 9 2016-02-12 02:01:10 <midnightmagic> not really the best place for this. maybe #bitcoin or ##bitcoin?
10 2016-02-12 02:01:12 <moa> a veritable cornucopia
11 2016-02-12 02:01:31 <kanzure> rusty: unfortunately it's only you and i that end up doing that hairsplitting
12 2016-02-12 02:01:36 <kanzure> midnightmagic: this is about the bitcoin-dev mailing list, yo
13 2016-02-12 02:01:52 <kanzure> rusty: i think that if he wants to talk about theoretical spv that's fine, but i don't think he does. so we should reject.
14 2016-02-12 02:01:54 <rusty> midnightmagic: yeah, I usually ping here, sorry for the noise.
15 2016-02-12 02:25:59 <Luke-Jr> kanzure: SPV is much more secure than the garbage out there
16 2016-02-12 02:26:18 <kanzure> you mean theoretical SPV?
17 2016-02-12 02:26:30 <kanzure> we don't have working fraud proofs for most things
18 2016-02-12 02:26:44 <gmaxwell> even absent fraud proofs, it's better than random web wallets.
19 2016-02-12 03:22:44 <Luke-Jr> kanzure: the only fraud proof is downloading the block yourself and checking it
20 2016-02-12 15:28:06 <BCB> what is bitcoin-shutoff process?  I've stopped my 0.12 rc5 node while downloading blocks and this process is still running.
21 2016-02-12 15:32:38 <kanzure> bip1 formatting bug (about "auxiliary files") has been included in bip-0001.mediawiki for over 3 years. doesn't this mean nobody is reading these things? https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/331
22 2016-02-12 15:33:32 <instagibbs> BCB, on initial download it can take a bit to shut off.
23 2016-02-12 15:34:02 <BCB> instagibbs: ok.  thanks
24 2016-02-12 15:40:47 <BCB> instagibbs: it's not going to finish the download is it?  Its sucking up all my CPU
25 2016-02-12 15:41:40 <BCB> instagibbs: debug.log show  StopNode()
26 2016-02-12 15:41:51 <BCB> *shows
27 2016-02-12 15:43:51 <phantomcircuit> BCB, it flushed the write cache
28 2016-02-12 15:45:06 <BCB> phantomcircuit: can I kill the bitcoin-shutoff process?
29 2016-02-12 15:47:08 <BCB> I think bitcoin-shutoff finally finished.
30 2016-02-12 15:48:30 <phantomcircuit> BCB, i mean.... yes but you might lose all of the synchronization progress since you started
31 2016-02-12 15:51:27 <BCB> phantomcircuit: I figured. Thanks.
32 2016-02-12 16:01:25 <Chris_Stewart_5> how are test cases suppose to be run in script_valid.json that use OP_CHECKSIG when there is no specified transaction
33 2016-02-12 16:01:29 <Chris_Stewart_5> for example ["0", "0x21 0x02865c40293a680cb9c020e7b1e106d8c1916d3cef99aa431a56d253e69256dac0 CHECKSIG NOT", "STRICTENC"]
34 2016-02-12 16:02:11 <phantomcircuit> Chris_Stewart_5, it creates a transaction with default everything except the script
35 2016-02-12 16:02:30 <phantomcircuit> you'd have to really go through that part of the code to make sense of it though
36 2016-02-12 16:02:59 <Chris_Stewart_5> phantomcircuit: this part? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/script/interpreter.cpp#L818
37 2016-02-12 16:03:02 <kefkius> grep for 'BuildSpendingTransaction'
38 2016-02-12 16:06:53 <Chris_Stewart_5> thanks kefkius
39 2016-02-12 16:06:58 <kefkius> np
40 2016-02-12 17:22:03 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: good catch on the pseudo-softfork thing. I didn't think of that
41 2016-02-12 17:29:51 <Luke-Jr> wumpus: I collected a bunch of bugfixes in master missing in 0.12 - I assume I should let them all wait for 0.12.1? mostly typos, the only ones I'd really consider are: "peers.dat, banlist.dat recreated when missing", "GUI: Disable tab navigation for peers tables.", and the just-merged "LibreSSL doesn't define OPENSSL_VERSION, use LIBRESSL_VERSION_TEXT instead"
42 2016-02-12 17:30:12 <wumpus> Luke-Jr: yes, would make sense to merge those for 0.12.1
43 2016-02-12 17:31:16 <btcdrak> CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY pull-request hasbeen moved to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7524 (and is rebased against the recently merged BIP68 #7184)
44 2016-02-12 17:31:37 <Luke-Jr> wumpus: k, thanks
45 2016-02-12 17:38:38 <wumpus> cfields: I checked all the differences in strings - nothing, it really just seems that the code is reordered
46 2016-02-12 17:39:36 <cfields> wumpus: same. i'm rebuilding with a new base
47 2016-02-12 17:41:43 <wumpus> rebuilt win, no change to the assert
48 2016-02-12 17:41:58 <wumpus> will wipe the cache and try again
49 2016-02-12 17:54:05 <Luke-Jr> paveljanik: coincidence
50 2016-02-12 18:01:28 <cfields> Luke-Jr: got server access back, i'll fixup the ip ranges once i get the build problem worked out
51 2016-02-12 18:01:51 <Luke-Jr> cfields: thanks
52 2016-02-12 18:34:35 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: thanks!